How many megapixels is 'enough'?

if u are talking about taking a pic and printing it out, most don't go bigger than 8x10...meaning 4mp is enough...however, i find that whenever i take pics, i always wish to crop them afterwards. sometimes taking a basic landscape picture and then cropping it into more of a panoramic picture gives it great depth and field. it truely enhances the picture.

and as a result of the cropping, i'm losing the resolution that i could have had by simply printing the whole picture out.

therefore, imo, the bare minimum for getting any type of good picture is 5mp. of course more is better.

but i'd take a 5/6mp slr over any of those 8mp cameras any day. besides the pixels, perhaps the most important aspect of the camera is lens quality.

Holy thread resurrection! :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ewitte
There is quite a bit of noise on the ones with the smaller sensors. Mine is 6.3MP with very little noise.

---

Cannon EOS Rebel? Just a guess.

Anyway, I have the Rebel, and it isn't about MP, it's about the CMOS recharge time, and the features a good SLR provide which typical clamshells don't.

For "Click and Print" snapshots from a clamshell you'll never tell the difference between a 3MP and something higher.

But if you're serious and want to do some editing, 5MP or higher is really needed.

We have had a Canon PowerShot A50 2.1 Megapixels for about 5 yrs. now. For the longest time 2.1 seemed to be the standard. In the last year or so the average has jumped from 2.1 to 3.2 megapixels.
Just this last week we finally broke down and purchased another camera after 5yrs. We really liked our Canon PowerShot A50, so Canon was the front-runner in our decision. With the Canon A50 came Adobe Photo Deluxe Business Edition 1.0 & Photo Impact 4.2. The other cameras we were concidering were Sony, Nikon, FujiFilm and the wife liked the Kodak cameras. After about 3 weeks of research we finally decided on the Canon PowerShot G6 (7.1 Megapixels). Something we really liked with the Canon G6 is that we could purchase extra lenses (wide angle converter & telephoto converter) and it also has a hotshoe for an external flash. We did concider the PowerShot Pro1 but found it a little pricy.

Canon G6

There is more to a camera than megapixels....

My top ten list in order of importance.

1) The Photographer
2) The Photographer
3) The Photographer
4) The Photographer
5) Lighting
6) The lens
7) The Photographer
8) The Photographer
9) The Photographer
10) perhaps megapixels....perhaps.

Even an Ansel Adams level photographer can't do much with poor equipment. IMO the lens is most important followed by the photographer and finally all the other equipment. A good photographer with the good equipment can make a mundane scene interesting. A great photographer with great equipment can turn that same scene into an award winner.

most camera's and most lenses are better than most photographers :D

when you can get 3.2 MP for $140, that is enough A75

i have this camera and love it and im not a serious photographer at all, but even i wish for more MP especially when i crop. i also have my pictures set as my screensaver and full size, the pictures are noticeably unsharp. i say 4MP would be suitable for me, the average camera owner.

Although I'm a gadget freak, I ain't too fussy about digicams. I had an Olympus 3.2mp camera a while back, but I'd lost it while I was in Hong Kong on holiday.:o So, what did I get as replacement? A Nikon Coolpix 3200....seems I like 3.2mp cameras that are easy to use.:p Recently, at a trade fair, my bud bought an 8mp camera, and while I was tempted to get one too, good sense prevailed for once....I doubt that I'd need a 'prosumer' camera like that, he'd also admitted that he'd prolly not be able to use it to the fullest as he's an average, and occasional, photographer at best....like me.:o Different strokes for different folks I guess...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ua549
I have yet to see a DMD or MD in private practice with other than a film based imaging device (xray machine). This week I had 8 images made of a broken heel. All were to film. Even my last cat scan (2002) was done to film. Perhaps large research hospitals are bypassing film in some cases, but I'm sure they have not eliminated film for still images.

---

I am a surgeon and work at four separate hospitals in Cincinnati. All of these hospitals have moved to a filmless system. The simple reason is cost. It costs too much to print films multiple times and have them lost and digital storage is cheaper.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Seapod
I am a surgeon and work at four separate hospitals in Cincinnati. All of these hospitals have moved to a filmless system. The simple reason is cost. It costs too much to print films multiple times and have them lost and digital storage is cheaper.

---

I agree for a large scale operation, but going digital is cost prohibitive for a very low volume operation such as the offices of a physician or dentist that is located in a storefront.

Holy Thread Resurrection, Batman!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bearded Kirklander
Holy Thread Resurrection, Batman!

---

who cares? It's a sticky...

As for mp, I'm picking up a Canon Ixus 50, which I will use as an ultracompact when I dont feel like using the D70.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PCJ
who cares? It's a sticky...

---

Didn't say I cared, just made the quote. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PCJ
who cares? It's a sticky...

As for mp, I'm picking up a Canon Ixus 50, which I will use as an ultracompact when I dont feel like using the D70.

---

I have the Canon Ixus 500 for a similar purpose, it can share the CF cards with my big Fuji and it's small enough I can carry it with me everywhere without noticing it, plus for its size it's a great little camera.

John

The Hasselblad H1D 22MP is enough. I think that's the model.

Anything else is just a toy.

Nothing quite like 150MB images.:)

One of my friends has one. It is amazing. The detail is beyond what you can even see with your EYES.

Just wait until the GIGAPIXEL camera comes out. It will be able to see through walls.

As long as you can get 300 dpi of actual image data, you should be good to go, I would think. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bearded Kirklander
As long as you can get 300 dpi of actual image data, you should be good to go, I would think. :)

---

Well.. if you're printing on basic inkjets you're not going to need more than 150dpi to reach the maximum quality level. There's not really any difference at all above 150 until you get to the weird levels that manufacturers quote.

For instance, the 4800x1200 on HP printers requires a 1200dpi source image. When you print it though (and you'll have to give it about an hour to spool that much of a file) you'll rarely see much difference from 150. It may look nicer, but it's arguable as to whether that's because of the higher dpi or simply because it took much longer and gave much more attention to quality and used more ink.

If you have that new Canon with the 1 picoliter system (the IP5000 I think) then you may need 200dpi, but I have yet to test it.

It could also be argued that the 360dpi print engines that some companies use (such as Epson) may look better at 180dpi than 150dpi. I have an Epson but I haven't done extensive testing on that. I do know that at 150 it looks pretty much as good as I would think it's going to look though.

-MrD

Gotta disagree Dig. But I don'w want a long, drawn out thread about it, so I'll just leave it at that. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImaNihilist

The Hasselblad H1D 22MP is enough. I think that's the model.

Anything else is just a toy.

Nothing quite like 150MB images.:)

One of my friends has one. It is amazing. The detail is beyond what you can even see with your EYES.

Just wait until the GIGAPIXEL camera comes out. It will be able to see through walls.

---

Gigapixel is already out.

http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm

Holy Thread Ressurection, Batman!

Well, it is a sticky, so I guess it's always there to be commented on.

-MrD

True dat.

I have a nikon 3.0 megapixel cam that doesnt take very good pictures, but my friend has a 5.0 megapixel fuji that is awesome. I know im sort of comparing apples to oranges, but I will still say that 5 is the sweet spot

I agree that 5mp seems the sweet spot. 8x10's look fine with that res for me, even when printed at Costco. Maybe I'm not the pickiest guy, but the 240 dpi of data in a 5mp shot on 8x10 seems to look just as good as 35mm film prints at 8x10. If anything, they did not have the grainyness that the 35mm print.

8mp would be cool, but I guess the 5mp level is holding its own better than some folks expected.